Random photo
Pay-to-play to increase next year
This year, a family with three students playing three sports each could be paying up to $90 depending on their lunch payment status. Next year, pay-to-play fees will increase to the point where the same family could be paying up to $450. Next school year, the athletics department will charge each student for each sport a fee of $50 for students on unassisted lunch, $40 for those on reduced and $30 on free. There will be leeway for families with multiple students.
In past years, the fees were on a $35, $25 or $15 scale, and there was a cap for families who had several student athletes.
The change was decided when recent budget cuts left the athletic department needing to increase revenue. Ideas were tossed around during the fall semester. The final idea was proposed by activities director Brian Engelken. The school board passed the proposal in December 2009.
Since all the money spent on pay-to-play fees goes into athletics, a large increase in fees also means a large increase in the athletic budget.
“It’s impossible to put a specific number down, but it should be somewhere between twenty to twenty five thousand dollars. If the same number of students who went out for sports this year go out next year, it could be almost 30,000,” Engelken said.
However, such a large increase in the fees will cause some students to rethink their decisions when deciding which sports they want to participate in. Engelken says the number of athletes will decrease, but is unsure to what extent.
“I think it will (decrease the number of athletes), but it’s hard to say how much. I don’t think it will decrease that much because if a kid really wants to play, them and their family will find a way,” Engelken said.
Joan Minkevitch, mother of three NHS student athletes, agrees with Engelken that most families will be able to adjust financially.
“The increased fees means that we as a family will take measures to save money elsewhere within our household budget. Also, the children themselves can pitch in from their summer jobs as they already have in the past when they require funds for items outside our budget,” Minkevitch said. “I’m sure this is bound to be a deciding factor for some people, and that is a sad truth that I wish weren’t the case. Sports can teach self discipline and many other positive character traits that are important to Paul (Joan’s husband) and myself. Thus, the sacrifice of other ticket items would place second to their participation. In our family, we would find a way to pay for it.”
Minkevitch said one alteration she would like to see made to the new play-to-pay fees is the assistance to those families who absolutely were not able to come up with the money.
“There is talk about people instituting an assistance fund,” Engelken said. “I don’t know if it will be implemented or not, but the idea is being kicked around now. I checked with the state, and it’s legal to have (an assistance fund).”
Increasing the athletic department budget helps to assist teams, but ultimately does not protect from future budget cuts.
“The board was very specific in saying we’ll pass this, but it doesn’t prevent them from coming back and say cuts need to be made. Not necessarily cutting teams and coaches, but the budget,” Engelken said.
If more cuts do occur, the school will look at other options before increasing fees again. If the activities budget continues to diminish, non-athletic activities could see changes in the way they operate.
“There is the possibility other activities such as band, forensics, debate and scholars’ bowl would have to pay fees,” Engelken said.
Increases in pay-to-play fees and decreases in the number of student athletes puts the community in a predicament, but the school is forced to make adjustments to adapt to the changing economy affecting its budget.
“I know that something has to be done in order to balance the books. I’m sure many ways to generate revenue have already been discussed by the ones guiding our schools,” Minkevitch said. “I have to trust that they have researched this extensively.”
Related items
Popularity: 3%
3 Responses to “ Pay-to-play to increase next year ”
Leave a Reply
I do agree with this article, by the way.
Also, what’s with the nonsense subtitle on the cover?
“With fees rising, families will have to juggle sports, money”
Sports, money…and…it seems cut off.
Thank you for your support! As for the subtitle, I believe that commas in a headline are a substitute for the word “and.” Sorry for the confusion!
As a parent of a student that participates in sports I think that the fee is fair. Although the pay to play fee is the lowest cost to a sports family, the cost to attend games is a much greater cost so is the cost of purchasing the equipment needed. I know parents that go to very few games(if any) because they don’t have the money. A family with one student playing one sport pays $5 entry fee with an average of 10 home games, if both parent go to games that’s $100, plus at least another $100 for equipment which means it’s an average of $250 for a student to play and be supported by their parents for each sport played.
My question is this….. is the increase really due to a budget cut or is it that the athletics department isn’t receiving the increase in funding it expected. “Budget cuts” rarely take money away from a department or school system, it just reduces the amount of an increase of funds.